Abstract Strategy

Arimaa, pronounced "a-ree-muh" is a game where stronger animals like elephants and camels freeze, push and pull the weaker ones from the opposing team around and into traps while one of the rabbits tries to sneak across the board and harmlessly reach the other side. The first player to get one of their rabbits to the other side wins.

This may sound like a simple kids game; and while it is easy enough for your kids to learn and enjoy, you will find that it is also a very deep game that can take a lifetime to master. Arimaa is one of the deepest strategy games ever invented in the history of mankind, but designed to look intuitively simple. No two games of Arimaa are ever the same. There is much to learn and discover about this intuitively simple, yet intellectually challenging game.

Played on a 8x8 grid with four trap squares and 32 animal pieces(16 gold and 16 silver). Each player has an elephant, camel, 2 horses, 2 dogs, 2 cats and 8 rabbits.
Strength hierarchy: Elephant>Camel>Horse>Dog>Cat>Rabbit.

The game begins with an empty board. Gold places the sixteen gold pieces first in any configuration on the first and second ranks. Silver then places the sixteen silver pieces in any configuration on seventh and eighth ranks. Then gold moves its pieces first. A player can move up to four "steps" each turn. All pieces move orthogonally.

History:
Arimaa was invented by Omar Syed, an Indian American computer engineer trained in artificial intelligence. Syed was inspired by Garry Kasparov's defeat at the hands of the chess computer Deep Blue to design a new game which could be played with a standard chess set, would be difficult for computers to play well, but would have rules simple enough for his then four-year-old son Aamir to understand. ("Arimaa" is "Aamir" spelled backwards plus an initial "a").
In 2002 Syed published the rules to Arimaa and announced a $10,000 prize, available annually until 2020, for the first computer program (running on standard, off-the-shelf hardware) able to defeat each of three top-ranked human players in a three-game series.

In Shangri-La, the mysterious and isolated utopia nestled high in the mountains, a strange struggle for dominance has begun. Once peaceful and neighborly, the Masters of the competing mountain-folk train their students and send them out across bridges to control neighboring villages. To take control of a village, the students must come together in uncomfortable alliances, regardless of their tribal origin. Eventually students become Masters themselves, train new students and expand to other villages.

There is one thing each student must keep in mind as they travel from village to village -- the mystical powers of Shangri-La mysteriously cause the bridges to collapse, separating villages forever. One crucial question will decide the winner: who will control the most Masters of Shangri-La?

Players take on the roles of leaders of a specific tribe. There is a battle raging over the empty villages of the land and players must quickly fill those villages with their tribal leaders. As players migrate tribal leaders from one village to the next, they must not become too weak or they risk losing leaders to opposing tribes. The ultimate object of the game is to have the most leaders on the board at the end of the game.
It is an abstract game with many options and tense until the end.

2004 Mensa Select

Thematically, players are adding masters and students, and trying to have the students migrate to nearby villages to become masters. Functionally, this is essentially a military game. Players either spend their turn reinforcing a village (adding more tokens there) or invading a neighboring village (expanding influence if you have more total tokens than the victim). The unique twist is that, after each invasion, the connecting bridge is removed. So over the course of the game, attack options become more and more limited, until the game naturally comes to a conclusion.

Each player attempts to score the most points by snaking caravan routes through the desert, trying to reach oases and blocking off sections of the desert. Many people feel that it is reminiscent of Go.

Publisher's Description
From the award-winning game designer Reiner Knizia comes a game of strategy, patience, and cool plastic camels! The desert is still treacherous, mysterious, and without mercy. But for those willing to risk the dangers of the shifting, sun-baked sands, the desert holds riches beyond compare.
In Through the Desert, two to five players each control a tribe of nomads vying for control of the desert. By establishing caravans and taking over oases, the players gain points as their tribes increase in power.
Strategy is essential in deciding how and where to build your tribe's caravans. There are multiple ways to gain points and several ways to win. Should you try to build the longest caravan? Or should you dominate the desert's oases? Don't forget to keep an eye on your opponents' caravans, or you may find your own tribe cut off from valuable water holes.

Through the Desert is part of the so called Knizia tile-laying trilogy.

User review: One player has twelve red frogs; the other player has twelve purple frogs. There is a yellow frog that can be moved by either player. The gameboard is a six-by-six grid. The perimeter squares are called the Outer Path. The Outer Path surrounds the squares called the Inner Path. The center four squares have been merged into the Pond, which is the goal area. Players roll both dice on their turn with the goal of getting one’s own frogs into the pond to win. The frogs may be stacked but an opponent whose frog rests on top of the stack can freeze a stack of two. An opponent can not freeze a stack of three. The stacking limit is five (except for the root and pond, which have none).

From the box:

The gameboard is your battlefield. You have an army of men at your disposal and six bombs. Your mission--protect your flag and capture your opponent's flag.

Secretly place your men, bombs, and flag on the gameboard with these objectives in mind. But remember your opponent is doing the same thing, so you must plan a defense as well as an offense.

Once the armies are in place, advance your men. When you're one space away from an enemy, attack. You and your opponent declare ranks. The lower-ranking man is captured and out of play.

You control your pieces and risk your men in battles where the strength of your enemy is unknown. The suspense builds as your men move deeper into enemy territory. Move with caution and courage. The next piece you attack could be a bomb. And when attacked, it could "blast" your man off the board and out of play.

The first to capture an enemy flag is the winner!

This game is similar to, and almost certainly derived directly from, the H.P. Gibsons (UK) game L'Attaque (1909). It is not exactly the same, but not far from it (numbered pieces, spy (same name) can kill the strongest piece but only when attacking, flag, bombs, etc.) These game in turn almost certainly draw on the classic Chinese children's game Dou Shou Qi.

Re-implemented by:

Stratego (Revised Edition) (aka Stratego Fire & Ice)
The Generals
Stratego: Legends
Stratego: Star Wars
Stratego: The Lord of the Rings
Ultimate Stratego
Electronic Stratego
Stratego: Marvel Heroes
Stratego: Star Wars Saga Edition
Stratego: The Chronicles of Narnia

and numerous others.

Similar to:

Admirals
Lu Zhan Jun Qi
L'Attaque
Batalj
Sharpe's Attack

Different Edition Complications
When first produced in Europe, the most powerful pieces had higher numbers. I.e. the Marshall (most powerful piece) was a 10, the General was a 9, and so on. The higher the rank, the higher the number.
When they introduced Stratego in the USA, the numbering was reversed, so the Marshall was a 1, the General 2, and so on. The 1st rank (most powerful) was 1, the second most powerful was 2, 3rd most powerful was 3....
Then, in 2000s Hasbro re-imagined Stratego in the USA and made a few changes. They reduced the number of pieces per side (from 40 to 30), added additional powers, and changed the numbering to reflect the European system.
This caused extreme consternation with many faithful American Stratego fans who preferred the 'old way'. (Actually the second oldest way, but whatever.) Many of these insist on playing Stratego with the 'Marshall 1 system'.
This wouldn't be a problem, except any and all discussions of Stratego are fraught with misunderstandings by those who are unaware of dual numbering systems! Keep this in mind when reading information about Stratego.